Category Archives: Politics

“It is so obvious with this president that had voters known some of what seem to be his business interests, he may not have been elected president“

The Washington Post: Trump could be left off some states’ ballots in 2020 if these bills become law.

“In refusing to release his tax returns, President Trump bucked decades of tradition and set off a Democrat hunt to obtain them. Now several statehouses are looking at making their release a condition of the 2020 presidential election: Show us your tax returns, or you can’t be on the ballot.

Eighteen states have considered legislation this year that would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to post their tax returns to appear on the ballot during a primary or general election, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

Proponents of the bills, such as the one passed by the Washington state Senate this week, say they are aimed at increasing transparency and returning to the “norm“ of candidates releasing their financial records. But Democratic lawmakers behind the some of the legislation have admitted they are also very much about Trump, which raises legal and political questions about how far states can — or should — go in regulating who appears on their ballot, especially in a hyperpartisan climate.”

Link via MetaFilter.

“Luring a banker”

The New York Times: A Mar-a-Lago Weekend and an Act of God: Trump’s History With Deutsche Bank.

Link via MetaFilter.

“After Mr. Trump won the election, Deutsche Bank’s board of directors rushed to understand how the bank had become the biggest lender to the president-elect.

A report prepared by the board’s integrity committee concluded that executives in the private-banking division were so determined to win business from big-name clients that they had ignored Mr. Trump’s reputation for demagogy and defaults, according to a person who read the report.

The review also found that Deutsche Bank had produced a number of “exposure reports“ that flagged the growing business with Mr. Trump, but that they had not been adequately reviewed by senior executives.

On Deutsche Bank’s trading floor, managers began warning employees not to use the word “Trump“ in communications with people outside the bank. Salesmen who violated the edict were scolded by compliance officers who said the bank feared stoking public interest in its ties to the new president.

One reason: If Mr. Trump were to default on his loans, Deutsche Bank would have to choose between seizing his assets or cutting him a lucrative break — a situation the bank would rather resolve in private.

Two years after Mr. Trump was sworn in, Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. The chamber’s financial services and intelligence committees opened investigations into Deutsche Bank’s relationship with Mr. Trump. Those inquiries, as well as the New York attorney general’s investigation, come at a perilous time for Deutsche Bank, which is negotiating to merge with another large German lender.

Next month, Deutsche Bank is likely to start handing over extensive internal documents and communications about Mr. Trump to the congressional committees, according to people briefed on the process.”

“Brits don’t quit” – “And then he quit”

Full Frontal with Samantha Bee: A Brief History of Brexit for Americans. (YouTube, 7:05min, 6 March 2019) “Are you an American having a hard time understanding Brexit? Allow Amy Hoggart to translate it for you.”

Bonus episode: The Original Trump Haters (YouTube, 7:11min, 8 February 2017) “We sent Amy Hoggart to Scotland to discuss resisting oppression with people who are born crotchety.”

Waffengesetze

Deutsche Welle: Massensterben durch Waffengewalt. “Der Tod durch Handfeuerwaffen zählt weltweit zu den häufigsten Todesursachen. Neben den jüngsten Attacken in den Niederlanden und Neuseeland sind vor allem die USA betroffen. Oft im Zentrum der Debatte: Waffengesetze.”

“Dass es möglich ist, eine waffenverliebte Gesellschaft von strengeren Waffengesetzen zu überzeugen, zeigt das Beispiel Australien. Ähnlich wie die Attentate von Christchurch erschütterte vor mehr als 20 Jahren die Tat eines 28-Jährigen im tasmanischen Port Arthur den “großen Bruder” Neuseelands. Der Täter hatte das Feuer in einem Cafe eröffnet, im Kugelhagel seines halbautomatischen Gewehrs starben 35 Menschen. Der konservative Premier John Howard brachte im Anschluss gegen massiven Widerstand aus Politik und Gesellschaft ein verschärftes Waffenrecht durchs Parlament.

Nicht einmal zwei Wochen nach dem Massaker wurden landesweit einheitliche Regeln erlassen, die ein vollständiges Verbot von vollautomatischen und halbautomatischen Schnellfeuergewehren, Schrotflinten und “Pumpguns” und strenge Kontrollen für alle anderen Waffen einführten. Jede Waffe muss einzeln registriert und in einem Safe aufbewahrt werden. Die Gesetzesverschärfung alleine war der Regierung nicht genug. Um die Zahl der Waffen in privater Hand zu senken, kaufte der Staat etwa 650.000 Waffen von ihren Besitzern, weitere Zehntausende wurden freiwillig abgegeben und verschrottet. Das Ergebnis ist beachtlich: Die Zahl der Schusswaffen-Toten ist seitdem in Australien um die Hälfte gesunken.”

“This decision was a long time in coming but it was more than worth the wait“

The New York Times: Sandy Hook Massacre: Remington and Other Gun Companies Lose Major Ruling Over Liability.

“The Connecticut Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the firearms industry on Thursday, clearing the way for a lawsuit against the companies that manufactured and sold the semiautomatic rifle used by the gunman in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The lawsuit mounted a direct challenge to the immunity that Congress granted to gun companies to shield them from litigation when their weapons are used in a crime. The ruling allows the case, brought by victims’ families, to maneuver around the federal shield, creating an opening for them to potentially bring their claims to trial and hold the companies, including Remington, the gun maker, liable for the attack.

The decision represents a significant development in the long-running battle between gun control advocates and the gun lobby. And it stands to have wider ramifications, experts said, by charting a possible legal road map for victims’ relatives and survivors from other mass shootings who want to sue gun companies.”